Editor - Having read the dance reviews of newly adopted dance critic Mary Ellen Hunt over the past couple months, I am dismayed at the improper and outdated direction in which The Chronicle is channeling its dance criticism. Hunt's articles offer little more than eloquent narratives of the works she is 'reviewing.'Mercer, who danced with Company C, seems to have a very particular idea of what critics writing for a daily newspaper should be doing. So what do you think out there?
When you look beyond the veil of her elaborate use of long descriptive words that she strings together in a poetic phrases you can see that there is almost no actual reviewing involved in her writings. In the past several decades much literature on the nature and purpose of dance criticism has been published, yet it seems that only a few dance critics and no newspaper editor outside of New York City have stumbled upon it.Dance criticism has evolved to a much greater level than dealing with summaries and description as is characteristic of Hunt's writings. It has now been shown that it's possible to add a level of intelligent analysis to a review! If a dance review doesn't address the values of a piece of art (why was it made, why is it deserving of a review, how it adds to or advances the art form, how it challenges convention, how it directs culture) the review offers little contribution and is nearly pointless.
By only offering description and summaries of works in your dance reviews you are not cultivating an audience of intelligent viewers who will be inspired to engage in seeing dance or even continue reading your articles, you are only cultivating an audience who knows how to appreciate a well-worded summary. Having been a professional dancer and pursuing academic dance research, I am constantly frustrated at how rarely the general public approaches dance with intelligent thought.
- Elliot Gordon Mercer
Read more at the SF Chronicle site.
No comments:
Post a Comment